Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: More than 767 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6.9 million deaths with COVID-19 have been recorded as of August 2023. Several public health and social measures were implemented in schools to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent onward transmission. We built upon methods from a previous Cochrane review to capture current empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of school measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. OBJECTIVES: To provide an updated assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to keep schools open safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Educational Resources Information Center, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program COVID-19 Evidence Reviews on 18 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies focused on measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, among students (aged 4 to 18 years) or individuals relating to the school, or both. We categorized studies that reported quantitative measures of intervention effectiveness, and studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures as either 'main' or 'supporting' studies based on design and approach to handling key confounders. We were interested in transmission-related outcomes and intended or unintended consequences. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts. We extracted minimal data for supporting studies. For main studies, one review author extracted comprehensive data and assessed risk of bias, which a second author checked. We narratively synthesized findings for each intervention-comparator-outcome category (body of evidence). Two review authors assessed certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The 15 main studies consisted of measures to reduce contacts (4 studies), make contacts safer (7 studies), surveillance and response measures (6 studies; 1 assessed transmission outcomes, 5 assessed performance of surveillance measures), and multicomponent measures (1 study). These main studies assessed outcomes in the school population (12), general population (2), and adults living with a school-attending child (1). Settings included K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12; 9 studies), secondary (3 studies), and K-8 (kindergarten to grade 8; 1 study) schools. Two studies did not clearly report settings. Studies measured transmission-related outcomes (10), performance of surveillance measures (5), and intended and unintended consequences (4). The 15 main studies were based in the WHO Regions of the Americas (12), and the WHO European Region (3). Comparators were more versus less intense measures, single versus multicomponent measures, and measures versus no measures. We organized results into relevant bodies of evidence, or groups of studies relating to the same 'intervention-comparator-outcome' categories. Across all bodies of evidence, certainty of evidence ratings limit our confidence in findings. Where we describe an effect as 'beneficial', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention; a 'harmful' effect does not favour the intervention and 'null' shows no effect either way. Measures to reduce contact (4 studies) We grouped studies into 21 bodies of evidence: moderate- (10 bodies), low- (3 bodies), or very low-certainty evidence (8 bodies). The evidence was very low to moderate certainty for beneficial effects of remote versus in-person or hybrid teaching on transmission in the general population. For students and staff, mostly harmful effects were observed when more students participated in remote teaching. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that in the general population there was probably no effect on deaths and a beneficial effect on hospitalizations for remote versus in-person teaching, but no effect for remote versus hybrid teaching. The effects of hybrid teaching, a combination of in-person and remote teaching, were mixed. Very low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a harmful effect on risk of infection among adults living with a school student for closing playgrounds and cafeterias, a null effect for keeping the same teacher, and a beneficial effect for cancelling extracurricular activities, keeping the same students together and restricting entry for parents and caregivers. Measures to make contact safer (7 studies) We grouped studies into eight bodies of evidence: moderate- (5 bodies), and low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a beneficial effect of mask mandates on transmission-related outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence showed full mandates were probably more beneficial than partial or no mandates. Evidence of a beneficial effect of physical distancing on risk of infection among staff and students was mixed. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that ventilation measures probably reduce cases among staff and students. One study (very low-certainty evidence) found that there may be a beneficial effect of not sharing supplies and increasing desk space on risk of infection for adults living with a school student, but showed there may be a harmful effect of desk shields. Surveillance and response measures (6 studies) We grouped studies into seven bodies of evidence: moderate- (3 bodies), low- (1 body), and very low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Daily testing strategies to replace or reduce quarantine probably helped to reduce missed school days and decrease the proportion of asymptomatic school contacts testing positive (moderate-certainty evidence). For studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures, the proportion of cases detected by rapid antigen detection testing ranged from 28.6% to 95.8%, positive predictive value ranged from 24.0% to 100.0% (very low-certainty evidence). There was probably no onward transmission from contacts of a positive case (moderate-certainty evidence) and replacing or shortening quarantine with testing may have reduced missed school days (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent measures (1 study) Combining multiple measures may have led to a reduction in risk of infection among adults living with a student (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A range of measures can have a beneficial effect on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilization and school attendance. We rated the current findings at a higher level of certainty than the original review. Further high-quality research into school measures to control SARS-CoV-2 in a wider variety of contexts is needed to develop a more evidence-based understanding of how to keep schools open safely during COVID-19 or a similar public health emergency.

Consented indicators for the evaluation of integrated strategies of community health promotion targeting children and adolescents: results of an eDelphi.

BACKGROUND: To date, there is no consensus on indicators for the evaluation of integrated community-based interventions for health promotion and prevention targeting children and adolescents. This study aims at consenting on a scoped set of indicators to evaluate integrated community-based interventions. METHODS: Out of 738 indicators derived from a literature search, we preselected 94 indicators allotted to 20 domains based on an internal quality appraisal and consensus process and conducted an eDelphi procedure to assess their relevance in view of experts. Experts were recruited in the field of public health, health sciences and communal health promotion in practice and were invited as participants in this eDelphi. During the eDelphi, 47 experts rated the relevance of 94 indicators in two rounds. Consensus was defined as agreement of 75% (or above). RESULTS: After round 1, 27 indicators among 11 consented subdomains reached a consensus on relevance. After round 2, a total of 36 indicators reached consensus on relevance in 9 subdomains (such as socioeconomic factors, health education, nutrition and physical activity, oral health, overall health status, specific health conditions, drug related behavior, exposure to drugs and violence, family factors). CONCLUSIONS: These identified indicators may provide a basis for evaluation concepts of integrated community-based interventions for children and adolescents to inform stakeholders about intervention impacts.

[Participation in children's hospitals: approaches to participatory formats for paediatric patients]. / Teilhabe im Kinderkrankenhaus: Formate zur Verwirklichung des Rechts auf Partizipation von jungen Patientinnen und Patienten.

Based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children and young people have the right to participate in all matters and decisions that affect them. This applies in particular when they are patients in a children's hospital. In the international context, established formats for the participation of young patients regarding health issues already exist, for example "Children's Councils" or "Young Person's Advisory Groups". In Germany, such approaches are still mostly lacking. It thus remains important to develop suitable formats that enable meaningful and effective participation of young patients in the health system. These formats must be chosen in such a way that they can realistically be implemented in clinical settings as well as in pediatric research, and that they can be sustained in the long term. In order to strengthen the consideration of children's rights in the health system, the advancement of such participatory formats as well as their sustainable implementation and evaluation are desirable.

Evaluation of community-based health promotion interventions in children and adolescents in high-income countries: a scoping review on strategies and methods used.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, community-based interventions have been increasingly adopted in the field of health promotion and prevention. While their evaluation is relevant for health researchers, stakeholders and practitioners, conducting these evaluations is also challenging and there are no existing standards yet. The objective of this review is to scope peer-reviewed scientific publications on evaluation approaches used for community-based health promotion interventions. A special focus lies on children and adolescents' prevention. METHODS: A scoping review of the scientific literature was conducted by searching three bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO). The search strategy encompassed search terms based on the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) scheme. Out of 6,402 identified hits, 44 articles were included in this review. RESULTS: Out of the 44 articles eligible for this scoping review, the majority reported on studies conducted in the USA (n = 28), the UK (n = 6), Canada (n = 4) and Australia (n = 2). One study each was reported from Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Scotland, respectively. The included studies described interventions that mostly focused on obesity prevention, healthy nutrition promotion or well-being of children and adolescents. Nineteen articles included more than one evaluation design (e.g., process or outcome evaluation). Therefore, in total we identified 65 study designs within the scope of this review. Outcome evaluations often included randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 34.2%) or specific forms of RCTs (cluster RCTs; 9.8%) or quasi-experimental designs (26.8%). Process evaluation was mainly used in cohort (54.2%) and cross-sectional studies (33.3%). Only few articles used established evaluation frameworks or research concepts as a basis for the evaluation. CONCLUSION: Few studies presented comprehensive evaluation study protocols or approaches with different study designs in one paper. Therefore, holistic evaluation approaches were difficult to retrieve from the classical publication formats. However, these publications would be helpful to further guide public health evaluators, contribute to methodological discussions and to inform stakeholders in research and practice to make decisions based on evaluation results.

Interventions to build resilience and to ameliorate negative psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The psychosocial health of children and adolescents has been particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Containment measures have restricted social development, education and recreational activities, may have increased family conflicts and, in many cases, led to feelings of loneliness, sleep disturbances, symptoms of anxiety and depression. We conducted a systematic review to identify interventions that seek to ameliorate these detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and to build resilience in children and adolescents. Literature searches were conducted in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (up to 30 June 2022). The searches retrieved 9557 records of which we included 13 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) for evidence synthesis. Included studies predominantly implemented online group sessions for school-aged children with either a psychological component, a physical activity component, or a combination of both. A meta-analysis of seven studies on anxiety and five on depressive symptoms provided evidence for a positive effect of interventions by reducing anxiety (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) (95% CI): - 0.33 (- 0.59; - 0.06)) and depressive symptoms (SMD (95% CI): - 0.26 (- 0.36; - 0.16)) compared to the control interventions. Studies also showed improvements in positive mental health outcomes, such as resilience (n = 2) and mental and psychological wellbeing (n = 2). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested a greater effectiveness of interventions that (i) are of higher frequency and duration, (ii) enable personal interaction (face-to-face or virtually), and (iii) include a physical activity component. Almost all studies were judged to be at high risk of bias and showed considerable heterogeneity. Further research may focus on the contribution of different intervention components or distinct subgroups and settings, and should examine children and adolescents over longer follow-up periods.

["Child Life Specialist" Interventions in Clinical Pediatric Care: A Systematic Review of the Effects on Mental Health Outcomes of Children and Adolescents]. / "Child Life Specialist"-Interventionen in der klinischen pädiatrischen Versorgung: Ein systematischer Review zu Effekten auf psychische Gesundheitsparameter von Kindern und Jugendlichen.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Hospital stays can lead to psychological stress in children, which is often not sufficiently addressed in standard care. A new approach is to involve specialized psychosocial professionals, designated as Child Life Specialists (CLS), in clinical care in order to strengthen the child's perspective, to cushion burdens through targeted interventions and to promote the well-being of the patients. The aim of this work is to analyze the effects of CLS interventions on fear, pain and stress of children in a clinical context. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the databases Medline, Embase and PsycINFO. The results are presented in tabular and graphical form. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed to investigate the effects of CLS interventions in 459 children aged 0-15 years. Significant improvement in each of the outcome criteria was reported in at least one study. All studies were expected to have a medium to high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The included RCTs report positive effects of CLS interventions on outcome variables of mental health of children in the clinical setting. Due to the small number of studies and their heterogeneity and quality, further research is needed.

[Development of an Integrated Community-Based Prevention Strategy in Freiham (Munich) from the Perspective of the Steering Group: A Qualitative Interview Study with Social Network Analysis]. / Aufbau der Präventionskette Freiham aus Sicht des Steuerungsgremiums: Eine qualitative Interviewstudie mit Sozialer Netzwerkanalyse.

BACKGROUND: The City of Munich is planning and implementing a "Prevention Chain" as an integrated community-based prevention strategy in the new district of "Freiham" in Munich. This is taking place while the district is being built. The "Prevention Chain Freiham" aims to create an environment that enables a healthy upbringing of all children and adolescents right from the start. In order to guide this project, an interdepartmental working group was formed within the City of Munich's administration. This study analyses the working group's structures, processes and its collaboration with a variety of stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted a multimethod study comprising qualitative interviews and social network analysis. Between March and April 2018, we conducted semi-structured interviews with members of the working group. The study participants also generated ego-centred social network maps. The transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis as described by Schreier. The network maps were also analysed using qualitative content analysis and the results were visualized. Our preliminary findings were interpreted, discussed and validated in a workshop in June 2018 with study participants. RESULTS: Ten members of the working group participated in the study. The interdepartmental, multiprofessional collaboration in the working group was perceived as beneficial for the process of developing and implementing the Prevention Chain. The external coordination by MAGs and the scientific expertise provided by the LMU Munich were considered highly supportive. Barriers to the planning and implementation of the Prevention Chain were mainly located at administration level. Most facilitators were attributed to the collaborative processes within the working group. After having mapped all stakeholders currently involved in the Prevention Chain (mainly actors within the City of Munich's administration), additional relevant stakeholders were identified by the members of the working group. CONCLUSION: The organizational form of the working group as a formalized association of representatives of various departments that are jointly responsible for the Prevention Chain is considered beneficial for the success of the Prevention Chain. This is further supported by the external coordination and academic support. Advancing the development and implementation of the Prevention Chain will require support from all relevant departments across sectors and hierarchies.

Epidemiology of hand injuries that presented to a tertiary care facility in Germany: a study including 435 patients.

BACKGROUND: Hand injuries compose up to 30% of all injuries in emergency care. However, there is a lack of epidemiological data reflecting patient or accident-related variables, injury types, injured anatomical structures or trauma localization. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is (1) to provide epidemiological information on hand injuries and their patterns and (2) to visualise the frequencies of affected areas of the hand in relation to the most common trauma mechanisms using color-coded heatmaps. METHODS: This prospective single-center observational trial conducted at a surgical emergency department in Germany collected data of hand trauma patients using a standardized documentation form. Demographic data, trauma-related data, diagnostic and therapeutic measures were analyzed. Color-coded heatmaps were generated marking anatomic danger zones. RESULTS: 435 patients with a mean age of 39.5 were included. Most patients admitted on their own initiative (79%). Leisure and sport injuries were most frequent (75%). Digiti II-V were injured most commonly (43%), followed by metacarpals (19%) and the thumb (14%). Blunt trauma and cuts accounted for most injuries (74%). Hand-graphics depicted color-coded frequencies of the affected areas of the palmar and dorsal aspect of the hand for the most common types of injury, as well as the most frequent circumstances of accident. Elective surgery was recommended in 25% of cases, and hand surgical follow-up was proposed in over 50% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The dorsal aspect of the hand including the 5th metacarpal, the radial wrist and thenar region, as well as the fingertips of Digiti II/III represent anatomic danger zones to injury of the hand. Due to the large variety of potentially injured structures, diagnosis and treatment is not trivial. Specific training is required for all surgical specialties in emergency care, to increase quality of diagnostic work-up and management of hand injuries.

Visualization of the location and level of pain in common wrist pathologies using color-coded heatmaps.

BACKGROUND: Pain of the hand and wrist affects a large patient population. If the onset is unrelated to recent trauma, the first medical contact is rarely established with a specialized hand surgeon. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this investigation was to (1) visualize the localization of hand pain using pain-related heatmaps in common wrist pathologies, (2) to test whether differences between these pathologies exist with regard to sociodemographic and pain-related aspects, and (3) to evaluate the major patient-reported complaints associated with the pathologies. METHODS: This observational cross-sectional study included patients suffering from: thumb basal joint arthritis (CMC-1-OA), dorsal wrist ganglions, and TFCC tears. Patients marked the location of maximum pain projection on hand graphics depicting the outline of the palmar and dorsal hand. Color-graded frequency heat maps were generated for the wrist pathologies investigated. Daily life impairments were assessed and clustered into groups of functions/activities. RESULTS: 120 patients with a mean age of 44.3 years were investigated. The diagnostic groups showed significant differences regarding the level and location of pain, as well as daily life impairments. Patients with CMC-1-OA presented with increased pain levels compared to patients with dorsal wrist ganglions and TFCC tears. Daily life impairment was rated highest when household chores were adversely affected, and sport activities were symptomatic/painful. All groups showed significant skin surface pain projection, which was visualized in heatmaps. While general trends in pain localization were visible, pain levels were also reported distal/proximal and palmar/dorsal to the pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of main demographic parameters, pain projection, and degree of impairment in daily activities can help physicians to narrow differential diagnosis of wrist pain during first patient contact. Patients should then be referred to hand surgeons for specialist examination, to further differentiate the origin of the pain.

[Quality of Life and Return to Work Following Rehabilitation - Results of the icfPROreha Study]. / Lebensqualität und Arbeitsfähigkeit nach unfallchirurgischer Rehabilitation ­ Ergebnisse der icfPROreha-Studie.

BACKGROUND: Not only the severity of an injury, but also bio-psycho-social factors affect health-related quality of life and participation in social life after severe musculoskeletal injuries. METHODS: Multicentre prospective longitudinal study with follow-up up to 78 weeks after discharge from inpatient trauma rehabilitation. Data were collected using a comprehensive assessment tool. Quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L, return to work by patients' self-reports and routine data of health insurances. Analyses of the association between quality of life and return to work, change over time in quality of life compared to the general German population and multivariate analyses to predict quality of life were conducted. RESULT: Of 612 study participants (444 men (72.5%); M=48.5 years; SD 12.0), 502 (82.0%) returned to work 78 weeks after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Quality of life improved during rehabilitation treatment from 50.18 to 64.50 (mean of visual analogue scale of EQ-5D-5L) and slightly to 69.38 78 weeks after discharge from inpatient trauma rehabilitation. EQ-5D index was below the values of the general population. In total, 18 factors were selected to predict quality of life 78 weeks after discharge from inpatient trauma rehabilitation. Among others, pain at rest and suspected anxiety disorder at admission had a very strong effect on quality of life. Contextual factors such as therapies after acute care and self-efficacy also had an effect on quality of life 78 weeks after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Bio-psycho-social factors affect long-term quality of life of patients with musculoskeletal injuries. Already at the time of discharge from acute treatment and even more at the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation, decisions can be made in order to achieve the best possible quality of life for those affected.

[Newborn blood spot screening (NBS) in Germany : Status quo and presentation of a concept for further development]. / Neugeborenen-Screening aus Trockenblut (NBS) in Deutschland : Status quo und Vorstellung eines Konzeptes zur Weiterentwicklung.

Newborn screening from dried blood spots (NBS) is a highly effective secondary prevention measure that has been established for many years. Against the background of the inclusion of "new diseases" that meet the screening criteria, a concept for the further advancement of NBS was developed on behalf of the GKV-Spitzenverband. This was based on a systematic literature review and a survey of the status quo of NBS in Germany using quantitative and qualitative methods.It is essential for the success of NBS that all newborns affected by a target disease are diagnosed and treated at an early stage and that the harm to be expected with each screening (e.g., due to false positive findings) is kept as low as possible. This requires the organisation of screening in the sense of an integrated programme through central coordination with standardised structures, continuous quality management and digitalisation in line with data protection requirements.Although in general NBS is being implemented successfully in Germany, the research project presented here also reveals weaknesses and a need for action. Proposals and recommendations were compiled in a concept paper, which shows approaches for further development of NBS in line with the current state of research in consideration of changing demands on the infrastructure and processes in the health system. This review article summarises the challenges, current status and possible solutions for the central topics of the concept paper.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND: In response to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments have implemented a variety of measures to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. Among these, have been measures to control the pandemic in primary and secondary school settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the different types of measures implemented in school settings and the outcomes used to measure their impacts on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilisation outcomes, other health outcomes as well as societal, economic, and ecological outcomes.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease (indexing preprints) on 9 December 2020. We conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental (i.e. randomised controlled trials; RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome categories were (i) transmission-related outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of cases); (ii) healthcare utilisation outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of hospitalisations); (iii) other health outcomes (e.g. physical, social and mental health); and (iv) societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. costs, human resources and education). We considered studies that included any population at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or developing COVID-19 disease including students, teachers, other school staff, or members of the wider community.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author extracted data and critically appraised each study. One additional review author validated the extracted data. To critically appraise included studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental and observational studies, the QUADAS-2 tool for observational screening studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. Three review authors made an initial assessment of the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed and agreed on the ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 unique studies in the analysis, comprising 33 modelling studies, three observational studies, one quasi-experimental and one experimental study with modelling components. Measures fell into four broad categories: (i) measures reducing the opportunity for contacts; (ii) measures making contacts safer; (iii) surveillance and response measures; and (iv) multicomponent measures. As comparators, we encountered the operation of schools with no measures in place, less intense measures in place, single versus multicomponent measures in place, or closure of schools. Across all intervention categories and all study designs, very low- to low-certainty evidence ratings limit our confidence in the findings. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the model structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. Across all categories, few studies reported on implementation or described how measures were implemented. Where we describe effects as 'positive', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention(s); 'negative' effects do not favour the intervention.  We found 23 modelling studies assessing measures reducing the opportunity for contacts (i.e. alternating attendance, reduced class size). Most of these studies assessed transmission and healthcare utilisation outcomes, and all of these studies showed a reduction in transmission (e.g. a reduction in the number or proportion of cases, reproduction number) and healthcare utilisation (i.e. fewer hospitalisations) and mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 11 modelling studies and two observational studies assessing measures making contacts safer (i.e. mask wearing, cleaning, handwashing, ventilation). Five studies assessed the impact of combined measures to make contacts safer. They assessed transmission-related, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, and a reduction in hospitalisations; however, studies showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school). We identified 13 modelling studies and one observational study assessing surveillance and response measures, including testing and isolation, and symptomatic screening and isolation. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Outcomes included transmission, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed effects in favour of the intervention in terms of reductions in transmission and hospitalisations, however some showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. fewer number of days spent in school). We found three studies that reported outcomes relating to multicomponent measures, where it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of each individual intervention, including one modelling, one observational and one quasi-experimental study. These studies employed interventions, such as physical distancing, modification of school activities, testing, and exemption of high-risk students, using measures such as hand hygiene and mask wearing. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, however some showed mixed or no effects.   As the majority of studies included in the review were modelling studies, there was a lack of empirical, real-world data, which meant that there were very little data on the actual implementation of interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences, such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention). Further, most studies assessed the effects of a combination of interventions, which could not be disentangled to estimate their specific effects. Studies assessing measures to reduce contacts and to make contacts safer consistently predicted positive effects on transmission and healthcare utilisation, but may reduce the number of days students spent at school. Studies assessing surveillance and response measures predicted reductions in hospitalisations and school days missed due to infection or quarantine, however, there was mixed evidence on resources needed for surveillance. Evidence on multicomponent measures was mixed, mostly due to comparators. The magnitude of effects depends on multiple factors. New studies published since the original search date might heavily influence the overall conclusions and interpretation of findings for this review.

[Nationwide Inventory of the Health Literacy Construct from the Perspective of the Profession Physiotherapy]. / Bundesweite Bestandsaufnahme zum Konstrukt Gesundheitskompetenz aus der Perspektive der Profession Physiotherapie.

In a nationwide online survey of professional physiotherapists PT, the role of health literacy in the professional self-image of physiotherapists was investigated. The construct of health literacy was considered by PT to be important in working with patients. A lack of time resources was mentioned by the majority as an inhibiting factor with regard to dealing with the topic and its integration into everyday clinical practice. Specialist articles and further training courses on the subject of health literacy are necessary in addition to being anchored in training and studies in order to improve knowledge of health literacy and its relevance in the care of patients by PT.

International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: In late 2019, the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in Wuhan, China, followed by a worldwide spread. Numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, travel restrictions, screening at borders, and quarantine of travellers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of international travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease transmission and screening-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research to 13 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across international borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the original review, we also considered evidence on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). In this version we decided to focus on COVID-19 evidence only. Primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) cases detected, and (iii) a shift in epidemic development. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts. For studies included in the analysis, one review author extracted data and appraised the study. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of data. To assess the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed these GRADE judgements. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we included 62 unique studies in the analysis; 49 were modelling studies and 13 were observational studies. Studies covered a variety of settings and levels of community transmission. Most studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of stringency of the measures (including relaxation of restrictions), or a combination of measures. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to the selection of travellers and the reference test, and unclear reporting of certain methodological aspects. Below we outline the results for each intervention category by illustrating the findings from selected outcomes. Travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel (31 modelling studies) The studies assessed cases avoided and shift in epidemic development. We found very low-certainty evidence for a reduction in COVID-19 cases in the community (13 studies) and cases exported or imported (9 studies). Most studies reported positive effects, with effect sizes varying widely; only a few studies showed no effect. There was very low-certainty evidence that cross-border travel controls can slow the spread of COVID-19. Most studies predicted positive effects, however, results from individual studies varied from a delay of less than one day to a delay of 85 days; very few studies predicted no effect of the measure. Screening at borders (13 modelling studies; 13 observational studies) Screening measures covered symptom/exposure-based screening or test-based screening (commonly specifying polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing), or both, before departure or upon or within a few days of arrival. Studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Studies generally predicted or observed some benefit from screening at borders, however these varied widely. For symptom/exposure-based screening, one modelling study reported that global implementation of screening measures would reduce the number of cases exported per day from another country by 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 95%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted delays in epidemic development, although there was wide variation in the results between the studies (very low-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted that the proportion of cases detected would range from 1% to 53% (very low-certainty evidence). Nine observational studies observed the detected proportion to range from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence), although all but one study observed this proportion to be less than 54%. For test-based screening, one modelling study provided very low-certainty evidence for the number of cases avoided. It reported that testing travellers reduced imported or exported cases as well as secondary cases. Five observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected varied from 58% to 90% (very low-certainty evidence). Quarantine (12 modelling studies) The studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. All studies suggested some benefit of quarantine, however the magnitude of the effect ranged from small to large across the different outcomes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Three modelling studies predicted that the reduction in the number of cases in the community ranged from 450 to over 64,000 fewer cases (very low-certainty evidence). The variation in effect was possibly related to the duration of quarantine and compliance. Quarantine and screening at borders (7 modelling studies; 4 observational studies) The studies assessed shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Most studies predicted positive effects for the combined measures with varying magnitudes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Four observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected for quarantine and screening at borders ranged from 68% to 92% (low-certainty evidence). The variation may depend on how the measures were combined, including the length of the quarantine period and days when the test was conducted in quarantine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With much of the evidence derived from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-world' evidence. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures and outcomes is very low and the true effects are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Symptom/exposure-based screening measures at borders on their own are likely not effective; PCR testing at borders as a screening measure likely detects more cases than symptom/exposure-based screening at borders, although if performed only upon arrival this will likely also miss a meaningful proportion of cases. Quarantine, based on a sufficiently long quarantine period and high compliance is likely to largely avoid further transmission from travellers. Combining quarantine with PCR testing at borders will likely improve effectiveness. Many studies suggest that effects depend on factors, such as levels of community transmission, travel volumes and duration, other public health measures in place, and the exact specification and timing of the measure. Future research should be better reported, employ a range of designs beyond modelling and assess potential benefits and harms of the travel-related control measures from a societal perspective.

Mental burden and its risk and protective factors during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Mental burden due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been widely reported for the general public and specific risk groups like healthcare workers and different patient populations. We aimed to assess its impact on mental health during the early phase by comparing pandemic with prepandemic data and to identify potential risk and protective factors. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analyses, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to May 29, 2020, and screened reference lists of included studies. In addition, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO for prepandemic comparative data. Survey studies assessing mental burden by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the general population, healthcare workers, or any patients (eg, COVID-19 patients), with a broad range of eligible mental health outcomes, and matching studies evaluating prepandemic comparative data in the same population (if available) were included. We used multilevel meta-analyses for main, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, focusing on (perceived) stress, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep-related symptoms as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2429 records retrieved, 104 were included in the review (n = 208,261 participants), 43 in the meta-analysis (n = 71,613 participants). While symptoms of anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.40; 95% CI 0.15-0.65) and depression (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.07-1.27) were increased in the general population during the early phase of the pandemic compared with prepandemic conditions, mental burden was not increased in patients as well as healthcare workers, irrespective of COVID-19 patient contact. Specific outcome measures (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire) and older comparative data (published ≥5 years ago) were associated with increased mental burden. Across the three population groups, existing mental disorders, female sex, and concerns about getting infected were repeatedly reported as risk factors, while older age, a good economic situation, and education were protective. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis paints a more differentiated picture of the mental health consequences in pandemic situations than previous reviews. High-quality, representative surveys, high granular longitudinal studies, and more research on protective factors are required to better understand the psychological impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to help design effective preventive measures and interventions that are tailored to the needs of specific population groups.

Health indices for the evaluation and monitoring of health in children and adolescents in prevention and health promotion: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health indicators are used in different settings to monitor health outcomes. Child and adolescent health is arguably one of the most important areas for the application of indices and indicators in prevention and health promotion. Although single health indicators may be better suited to display the complexity of the health status and its determinants, a selected set of indicators will still offer a complex picture. Therefore, it is argued that a group of indicators combined into an index may offer a pragmatic tool that is easier to use in order to inform stakeholders. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify and describe health indices that monitor and evaluate health of children and adolescents and to appraise the quality and value of the identified indices that may guide the further applications of these indices in particular settings. The three bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched and a double screening of titles and abstracts as well as double screening of full texts was performed. Indices contained in these studies were analysed in terms of focus and composition and evaluated in terms of quality criteria. RESULTS: The scoping review identified 36 eligible studies with 18 health indices in six thematic categories. Of the identified indices, seven indices focus on anthropometrical variables, three indices focus on special aspects of newborns and five indices focus on oral health. One index assesses "healthy lifestyle" and one "functional ability" whereas one index a combination of different aspects. Most indices are calculated by using primary health data. CONCLUSIONS: Alone or in combination with single sets of indicators, indices in six major thematic domains may be used as pragmatic tools for monitoring children's and adolescents´ health and the evaluation of interventions in health promotion and prevention settings.

[Burden in parents of school-aged children during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: an analysis within the COVID-19 snapshot monitoring (COSMO) study]. / Belastung von Eltern mit Kindern im Schulalter während verschiedener Phasen der COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland: Eine Analyse der COVID-19-Snapshot-Monitoring-(COSMO­)Daten.

BACKGROUND: Parents face a variety of personal challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, while simultaneously being confronted with additional, school-related pandemic containment measures. OBJECTIVES: To investigate burden in parents of school-aged children across different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany and to identify particularly affected subgroups. METHODS: The COSMO project is a repetitive cross-sectional survey monitoring the psychosocial situation of the population in Germany during the pandemic with a sample size of approximately n = 1000 respondents per survey wave. A quantitative analysis of COSMO data was conducted using closed survey questions on the item "burden" as the main outcome, and, if applicable, on parenthood-associated burden from March 2020 until January 2021. RESULTS: During the first COVID-19 wave, parents of school-aged children were significantly more burdened compared to the general study population. However, burden decreased significantly from March/April to June 2020. During the second COVID-19 wave in January 2021, burden was homogeneously high across all groups. Single parenthood, a low household income, having a chronic health condition, a COVID-19 infection and a migration background were associated with higher burden, although none of these factors was consistently significant across the survey waves. Mothers reported to be more affected by parenthood-related burden than fathers. CONCLUSIONS: School measures for infection control have to be weighed carefully against the psychological impact on parental burden with subsequent negative impact on the family system. An English full-text version of this article is available at SpringerLink as Supplementary Information.

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: In response to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the impact of COVID-19, national and subnational governments implemented a variety of measures in order to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. While these measures were imposed with the intention of controlling the pandemic, they were also associated with severe psychosocial, societal, and economic implications on a societal level. One setting affected heavily by these measures is the school setting. By mid-April 2020, 192 countries had closed schools, affecting more than 90% of the world's student population. In consideration of the adverse consequences of school closures, many countries around the world reopened their schools in the months after the initial closures. To safely reopen schools and keep them open, governments implemented a broad range of measures. The evidence with regards to these measures, however, is heterogeneous, with a multitude of study designs, populations, settings, interventions and outcomes being assessed. To make sense of this heterogeneity, we conducted a rapid scoping review (8 October to 5 November 2020). This rapid scoping review is intended to serve as a precursor to a systematic review of effectiveness, which will inform guidelines issued by the World Health Organization (WHO). This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and was registered with the Open Science Framework. OBJECTIVES: To identify and comprehensively map the evidence assessing the impacts of measures implemented in the school setting to reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the types of measures implemented in different school settings, the outcomes used to measure their impacts and the study types used to assess these. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the CDC COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database for preprints, and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 8 October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that assessed the impact of measures implemented in the school setting. Eligible populations were populations at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, or developing COVID-19 disease, or both, and included people both directly and indirectly impacted by interventions, including students, teachers, other school staff, and contacts of these groups, as well as the broader community. We considered all types of empirical studies, which quantitatively assessed impact including epidemiological studies, modelling studies, mixed-methods studies, and diagnostic studies that assessed the impact of relevant interventions beyond diagnostic test accuracy. Broad outcome categories of interest included infectious disease transmission-related outcomes, other harmful or beneficial health-related outcomes, and societal, economic, and ecological implications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data from included studies in a standardized manner, and mapped them to categories within our a priori logic model where possible. Where not possible, we inductively developed new categories. In line with standard expectations for scoping reviews, the review provides an overview of the existing evidence regardless of methodological quality or risk of bias, and was not designed to synthesize effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterize strength of evidence (GRADE). MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies that assessed measures implemented in the school setting. The majority of studies used mathematical modelling designs (n = 31), while nine studies used observational designs, and two studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Studies conducted in real-world contexts or using real data focused on the WHO European region (EUR; n = 20), the WHO region of the Americas (AMR; n = 13), the West Pacific region (WPR; n = 6), and the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR; n = 1). One study conducted a global assessment and one did not report on data from, or that were applicable to, a specific country. Three broad intervention categories emerged from the included studies: organizational measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 36), structural/environmental measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 11), and surveillance and response measures to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections (n = 19). Most studies assessed SARS-CoV-2 transmission-related outcomes (n = 29), while others assessed healthcare utilization (n = 8), other health outcomes (n = 3), and societal, economic, and ecological outcomes (n = 5). Studies assessed both harmful and beneficial outcomes across all outcome categories. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified a heterogeneous and complex evidence base of measures implemented in the school setting. This review is an important first step in understanding the available evidence and will inform the development of rapid reviews on this topic.

Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: In late 2019, first cases of coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, were reported in Wuhan, China. Subsequently COVID-19 spread rapidly around the world. To contain the ensuing pandemic, numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, partial travel restrictions, entry or exit screening, and quarantine of travellers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease and screening-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the CDC COVID-19 Research Database on 26 June 2020. We also conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across national borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also included studies concerned with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) as indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were cases avoided, cases detected and a shift in epidemic development due to the measures. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author screened titles and abstracts; all excluded abstracts were screened in duplicate. Two review authors independently screened full texts. One review author extracted data, assessed risk of bias and appraised study quality. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of all data reported in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, quality appraisal and data synthesis. For assessing the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, ROBINS-I for observational ecological studies and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, and the review author team discussed ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 records reporting on 36 unique studies. We found 17 modelling studies, 7 observational screening studies and one observational ecological study on COVID-19, four modelling and six observational studies on SARS, and one modelling study on SARS and MERS, covering a variety of settings and epidemic stages. Most studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the intervention measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of travel restrictions, or a combination of measures. There were concerns with the quality of many modelling studies and the risk of bias of observational studies. Many modelling studies used potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Concerns with observational screening studies commonly related to the reference test and the flow of the screening process. Studies on COVID-19 Travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel Eleven studies employed models to simulate a reduction in travel volume; one observational ecological study assessed travel restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Very low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests that when implemented at the beginning of the outbreak, cross-border travel restrictions may lead to a reduction in the number of new cases of between 26% to 90% (4 studies), the number of deaths (1 study), the time to outbreak of between 2 and 26 days (2 studies), the risk of outbreak of between 1% to 37% (2 studies), and the effective reproduction number (1 modelling and 1 observational ecological study). Low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests a reduction in the number of imported or exported cases of between 70% to 81% (5 studies), and in the growth acceleration of epidemic progression (1 study). Screening at borders with or without quarantine Evidence from three modelling studies of entry and exit symptom screening without quarantine suggests delays in the time to outbreak of between 1 to 183 days (very low-certainty evidence) and a detection rate of infected travellers of between 10% to 53% (low-certainty evidence). Six observational studies of entry and exit screening were conducted in specific settings such as evacuation flights and cruise ship outbreaks. Screening approaches varied but followed a similar structure, involving symptom screening of all individuals at departure or upon arrival, followed by quarantine, and different procedures for observation and PCR testing over a period of at least 14 days. The proportion of cases detected ranged from 0% to 91% (depending on the screening approach), and the positive predictive value ranged from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). The outcomes, however, should be interpreted in relation to both the screening approach used and the prevalence of infection among the travellers screened; for example, symptom-based screening alone generally performed worse than a combination of symptom-based and PCR screening with subsequent observation during quarantine. Quarantine of travellers Evidence from one modelling study simulating a 14-day quarantine suggests a reduction in the number of cases seeded by imported cases; larger reductions were seen with increasing levels of quarantine compliance ranging from 277 to 19 cases with rates of compliance modelled between 70% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With much of the evidence deriving from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-life' evidence for many of these measures. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures is very low and the true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Nevertheless, some travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic may have a positive impact on infectious disease outcomes. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Entry and exit symptom screening measures on their own are not likely to be effective in detecting a meaningful proportion of cases to prevent seeding new cases within the protected region; combined with subsequent quarantine, observation and PCR testing, the effectiveness is likely to improve. There was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of travel-related quarantine on its own. Some of the included studies suggest that effects are likely to depend on factors such as the stage of the epidemic, the interconnectedness of countries, local measures undertaken to contain community transmission, and the extent of implementation and adherence.

[Facilitators and Challenges of Community-based Prevention Programmes for Children - Results of a Qualitative Study]. / Chancen und Herausforderungen von Präventionsketten ­ Ergebnisse qualitativer Experteninterviews in deutschen Kommunen.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prevention strategies in community settings for children and youth are integrative health promotion strategies with cross-sector partnerships to improve health and social participation in children and youth at the community level. The objective of the qualitative study was to investigate cross-sector partnerships in German communities when implementing community-based prevention strategies targeting health of children and youth. Such strategies of health promotion have included complex interventions involving multiple stakeholders from different sectors jointly working together. The specific aims were: (1) to explore the structure and organization of the cross-sector partnerships and (2) to identify facilitating and hindering factors when implementing community-based prevention strategies targeting health of children and youth from the perspective of stakeholders. METHODS: Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with eight experts of local governments in German municipalities. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results show that mechanisms of interagency collaborations in child and youth health programs included networking processes on a vertical and horizontal level. These included the creation of inter-sectoral networks for joint development of structures and actions. Inter-sectoral networks were accompanied by network moderators. Successful cooperation was promoted through engagement, joint goal-setting, political support and use of existing resources. Lack of resources, a low engagement of local actors and a lack of acceptance of the aspirations are identified as barriers. The extent of facilitating and hindering factors varied depending on the local structures of municipalities.